A28 RELATIVE RATES OF ULCERATIVE COLITIS TO CROHN’S DISEASE: PARALLEL EPIDEMIOLOGIES IN NEWLY VS. HIGHLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) first presents in a population as cases of ulcerative colitis (UC) followed by cases of Crohn’s disease (CD). Newly industrialized countries (NIC) show a prallel epidemiology of IBD to highly industrialized countries (HIC) in the previous century; one marker of this is the relative incidence/prevalence rates of UC to CD, which approximates 1 over time. Aims Provide evidence for the UC:CD ratio as a proxy for disease penatrance in a population. Methods Systematic review of MedLine and Embase for studies reporting incidence or prevalence of UC and CD. Log-linear regression (by region and NIC/HIC [2019 United Nations definitions]) was used to calculate average annual percent change (AAPC) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Data were plotted on an online, interactive map to show trends (link provided). Results We extracted data from 218 studies compising population-level data from 69 countries. We found negative AAPCs as the prevalence ratio of UC:CD significantly decreased over time in East Asia, West Asia, North Europe, and South Europe; 6/12 global regions displayed significantly decreasing incidence ratios. No AAPC was found to be significantly increasing (Table 1). When examing HIC/NIC, we found a significant effect of NIC on the UC:CD prevalence ratio after 2000 (AAPC:−3.83;95%CI:−6.28,−1.31) while HIC regions remained stable (AAPC:2.14;95%CI:−1.40,5.82). Looking at all available data, both HICs and NICs show significantly decreasing UC:CD prevalence ratios (HIC:AAPC:−3.72;95% CI:−4.46,−2.97; NIC:AAPC:−2.62;95%CI:−4.13,−1.08). Conclusions In some HICs (eg. Canada), the UC:CD incidence ratio was <1 in the earliest available data (1966), explaining the stable AAPC in North America (AAPC:−0.24;95%CI:−1.12,0.65). However, in NICs (eg. Southern Asia), the AAPC is rapidly decreasing (AAPC:−24.68;95%CI:−37.85,−8.71) as areas like Sri Lanka rapidly fall from an incidence ratio of 7.5 (2007) to 2.8 (2012), mimicking trends in IBD epidimeology of HICs in the previous century. Funding Agencies None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".